Let the Professionals Build Your Social Media Networks

Tag Archives: Disputes

Post navigation

Earlier today, the New York Times published a report stating that, according to Kurdish officials, the US military launched airstrikes in Northern Iraq, targeting members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

This comes after the Obama administration was said to be considering airstrikes or airdrops of food and medicine to religious minorities taking shelter from ISIS insurgents. If the Times report is to believed, the government opted for bombs.

But shortly after the report was published, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby tweeted that the reports were untrue.

“Press reports that US has conducted airstrikes in Iraq completely false. No such action taken,” he wrote.

Granted, the Times hedged its story by attributing the report of US bombing to “Kurdish officials.” It’s unclear whether the Times had asked the Pentagon for comment before publishing the story.

So whose lines got crossed? It’s possible that an aircraft did attack ISIS insurgents, but it didn’t come from the US military. AKurdish resident told McClatchy that “she had seen the aircraft and had heard the explosions coming from behind Islamic State lines.” Kurdish television echoed the reports of officials, stating that the aircraft belonged to America.

Others have hypothesized that the disagreement is a matter of semantics. What does the Pentagon consider “airstrikes”? Do they include attacks using cruise missiles like Tomahawks? And if the US did attack insurgents in Iraq, why would the Pentagon use such strong language in denying the reports? Whatever the truth is, either the Times or the Pentagon is going to have a bit of explaining to do.

In any case, the uncertainty hasn’t stopped the right-leaning aggregation site Drudge Report from splashing the headline “OBAMA BOMBS IRAQ?” across its homepage (at least they used a question mark, which I guess is as much integrity as you can expect from some sites). And as with all things related to the rat’s nest the Internet has turned breaking news reporting into, people will remember the sensational over the sensible.

David Holmes is Pando’s East Coast Editor. He is also the co-founder of Explainer Music, a production company specializing in journalistic music videos. His work has appeared at FastCompany.com, ProPublica, the Guardian, the Daily Dot, NewYorker.com, and Grist.

It appears 2014 could be a turning point in the endless battle of patent disputes among major tech companies.Samsung and Google and have just announced a landmark global patent agreement covering both current patent portfolios and any other ones acquired in the next 10 years. Now Samsung and Ericsson have also just agreed to end all patent litigation and enter a cross-licensing agreement on mobile technologies.

“We are pleased that we could reach a mutually fair and reasonable agreement with Samsung. We always viewed litigation as a last resort,” said Kasim Alfalahi, the chief intellectual property officer at Ericsson. “This agreement allows us to continue to focus on bringing new technology to the global market and provides an incentive to other innovators to share their own ideas.”

Alfalahi should be pleased, along with Ericsson shareholders, as the deal includes provisions for an initial lump payment and ongoing royalty payments by Samsung to Ericsson for the term of the multi-year agreement (undisclosed specifics so far). This puts an end to all lawsuits between the two companies in the International Trade Commission (ITC) along with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Following the deal with Google earlier, this is an all around positive step for Samsung, too, that allows for a bright future and limits some of the ongoing patent disputes. Now if Apple, who is in negotiations with Samsung right now, were to join the party with its patent portfolio, maybe 2014 will truly go down as the year of collaborative innovation and the end of the patent wars!